The 15th SLALM (Latin American Symposium in Mathematical Logic) was held in Bogotá, June 4-8, 2012. There were also three tutorials preceding the main event, on May 30-June 2. I give one of the tutorials, on Determinacy and Inner model theory, 10:40-12 each day, at the Universidad Nacional. Here is the abstract:

Since the invention of forcing, we know of many statements that are independent of the usual axioms of set theory, and even more that we know are consistent with the axioms (but we do not yet know whether they are actually provable).

These proofs of consistency typically make use of large cardinal assumptions. Inner model theory is the most powerful technique we have developed to analyze the structure of large cardinals. It also allows us to show that the use of large cardinals is in many cases indispensable. For years, the main tool in the development of this area was fine structure theory.

Determinacy (in suitable inner models) is a consequence of large cardinals, and recent work has revealed deep interconnections between determinacy assumptions and the existence of inner models with large cardinals, thus showing that descriptive set theory is also a key tool.

The development of these connections started in earnest with Woodin’s core model induction technique, and has led to what we now call Descriptive inner model theory.

The goal of the mini-course is to give a rough overview of these developments.

I have written a set of notes based on these talks, and will be making it available soon.

In addition, I gave one of the invited talks during the set theory session: Forcing with over models of strong versions of determinacy. Here is the abstract:

Hugh Woodin introduced , a definable poset, and showed that, when forcing with it over (in the presence of determinacy), one recovers choice, and obtains a model of many combinatorial assertions for which simultaneous consistency was not known by traditional forcing techniques. can be applied to larger models of determinacy. As part of joint work with Larson, Sargsyan, Schindler, Steel, and Zeman, we show how this allows us to calibrate the strength of different square principles.

In particular, Woodin showed that, starting with a model of “ is regular”, a strong form of determinacy, the extension satisfies , the restriction of Martin’s maximum to posets of size at most . It is natural to wonder to what extent this can be extended. In this paper, we study the effect of on square principles, centering on those that would be decided by .

These square principles are combinatorial statements stating that a specific version of compactness fails in the universe, namely, there is a certain tree without branches. They were introduced by Ronald Jensen in his paper on The fine structure of the constructible universe. The most well known is the principle :

Definition. Given a cardinal , the principle holds iff there exists a sequence such that for each ,

Each is club in ;

For each limit point of , ; and

The order type of each is at most .

For this is true, but uninteresting. The principle holds in Gödel’s , for all uncountable . It is consistent, relative to a supercompact cardinal, that it fails for all uncountable . For example, this is a consequence of Martin’s maximum.

Recently, the principle has been receiving some attention.

Definition. Given an ordinal , the principle holds iff there exists a sequence such that

For each , each is club in ;

For each , and each limit point of , ; and

There is no thread through the sequence, i.e., there is no club such that for each limit point of .

Using the Core Model Induction technique developed by Woodin, work of Ernest Schimmerling, extended by Steel, has shown that the statement

implies that determinacy holds in , and the known upper bounds in consistency strength are much higher.

Here are some of our results: First, if one wants to obtain in a extension, one needs to start from a reasonably strong determinacy assumption:

Theorem.Assume “ is regular”, and that there is no such that “ is Mahlo in “. Then holds in the extension.

This results uses a blend of fine structure theory with the techniques developed by Sargsyan on his work on hybrid mice. The assumption cannot be improved since we also have the following, the hypothesis of which are a consequence of “ is Mahlo in ”.

Theorem.Assume that holds and that is a limit on the Solovay sequence such that that there are cofinally many that are limits of the Solovay sequence and are regular in . Then fails in the extension of .

Here, denotes the collection of subsets of of Wadge rank less than . The Solovay sequence, introduced by Robert Solovay in The independence of from , is a refinement of the definition of , the least ordinal for which there is no surjection :

Definition. The Solovay sequence if the sequence of ordinals such that

is the least ordinal that is not the surjective image of the reals by an ordinal definable function;

For each , is the least ordinal that is not the surjective image of the reals by a function definable from an ordinal and a set of reals of Wadge rank ;

For each limit ordinal , ; and

.

The problem with the result just stated is that choice fails in the resulting model. To remedy this, we need to start with stronger assumptions. Still, these assumptions greatly improve the previous upper bounds for the consistency (with ) of . In particular, we now know that this theory is strictly weaker than a Woodin limit of Woodin cardinals.

Theorem.Assume that holds, that , and that stationarily many elements of cofinality in the Solovay sequence are regular in . Then in the -extension, fails.

(The forcing adds a Cohen subset of . This suffices to well-order , and therefore to force choice. That in the resulting model we also have follows from prior work of Woodin.)

Finally, I think I should mention a bit of notation. In the paper, we say that is square inaccessible iff fails. We also say that is threadable iff fails. This serves to put the emphasis on the negations of the square principles, which we feel is where the interest resides. It also solves the slight notational inconvenience of calling a principle that is actually a statement about .

As mentioned before, I asked my 305 students to write a short paper as a final project. I am posting them here, with their permission; it is my hope that people will find them useful. There are some very nice papers here.

The only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Throughout the question, we only consider primes of the form $3k+1$. A reference for cubic reciprocity is Ireland & Rosen's A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. How can I count the relative density of those $p$ (of the form $3k+1$) such that the equation $2=3x^3$ has no solutions modulo $p$? Really, even pointers on how to say anything […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

The usual definition of a series of nonnegative terms is as the supremum of the sums over finite subsets of the index set, $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i=\sup\biggl\{\sum_{j\in J}x_j:J\subseteq I\mbox{ is finite}\biggr\}.$$ (Note this definition does not quite work in general for series of positive and negative terms.) The point then is that is $a< x

The result was proved by Kenneth J. Falconer. The reference is MR0629593 (82m:05031). Falconer, K. J. The realization of distances in measurable subsets covering $R^n$. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 31 (1981), no. 2, 184–189. The argument is relatively simple, you need a decent understanding of the Lebesgue density theorem, and some basic properties of Lebesgue m […]

Given a class $S$, to say that it can be proper means that it is consistent (with the axioms under consideration) that $S$ is a proper class, that is, there is a model $M$ of these axioms such that the interpretation $S^M$ of $S$ in $M$ is a proper class in the sense of $M$. It does not mean that $S$ is always a proper class. In fact, it could also be consis […]

As the other answers point out, the question is imprecise because of its use of the undefined notion of "the standard model" of set theory. Indeed, if I were to encounter this phrase, I would think of two possible interpretations: The author actually meant "the minimal standard model of set theory", that is, $L_\Omega$ where $\Omega$ is e […]